What does the fossil record say?

[painted wolf]

Miacids.... they totally look like... cats? Just bits of jaws and teeth?

yup... totally a "fully formed cat"...

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You miss the point I make which is your researcher have no idea really with homoplasy your scientists are best guessing at best.

And you haven't a clue. You've offered no way to distinguish the diversity of species on the planet. "Kinds", as you display in your argument, relies heavily on subjective morphology (e.g. Well it looks like a cat so it must be a cat). You have no idea where this fits.

Is it a cat or a dog in your view...? You keep evading the question.

So what? You are talking about creatures with us today a long shot from classifying something millions of years old? This is a mute point you are wasting your time on.

So you can't even answer the question as to what it looks like considering you keep going on about how Miacis "looks like" a cat therefore it's a cat....Well, have at it. What does the picture look like?

Oh, and I find your statement to not make any kind of sense considering you just said......

Every fossil described anywhere I have looked speaks to animals that resemble a kind here today. (See. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2425313-post210.html)

They can't even make up their minds if Ardi is in the human line or not. They represented neanderthal like an ape man until they got DNA to supposedly settle the matter and still they debate contributions if any. What are you trying to prove? You are providing convincing evidence as to how your scientists would also have no clue. You play this game. Your researchers have many unanswered questions. Does that make TOE crap. You say you have convincing evindence. I am looking at carnivores. I say you do not have any convincing evidence at all. Trying to find questions in the hope that I cannot answer does not illustrate convincing evidence of carnivore ancestry. It is just a desperate smoke screen for times you cannot supply the evidence requested that you alledge you have so much of. Where is it??????????????????

So basically you answer my questions with a straw-man argument...which really means you're ill-equipped to answer the question. You talk a good game about how scientist and/or researchers don't know but instead of railing against those that have stated their case how about you put up some testable evidence that refutes them? Where are the creationist biologist and their testable evidence that "kinds" should be considered as a replacement for the widely accepted understanding of "Species"..?

I think you are ill equiped the differnce being I can prove it

In May 2010, the project released a draft of their report on the sequenced Neanderthal Genome. Contradicting the results discovered while examining mitochondrial DNA, they demonstrated a range of genetic contribution to non-African modern humans ranging from 1% to 4%. From their Homo sapiens samples in Eurasia (French, Han Chinese & Papuan) the authors state that it is likely that interbreeding occurred in the Levant before Homo sapiens migrated into Europe.[18] However, this finding is disputed because of the lack of archeological evidence supporting their statement. The fossil evidence does not place Neanderthals and modern humans in close proximity at this time and place.[19]
Neanderthal genome project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So you think this is settle do you? Well, I have news for you, lovey....

The evidence shows that the Neanderthal contributed DNA to H. Sapeins. What ways do you know this could happen?...So basically you "proved" my point. You haven't a clue as to what you're talking about.

Pandas are herbovores, and just another example of the contadictions in your taxonomy. I can read which appearently is a more advanced trait than you possess.

You don't know that you don't know. Ye old great WIKI says.......

Giant panda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
" Pandas in the wild will occasionally eat other grasses, wild tubers, or even meat in the form of birds, rodents or carrion. In captivity they may receive honey, eggs, fish, yams, shrub leaves, oranges, or bananas along with specially prepared feed"

The wiki also says....
" the giant panda still has the digestive system of a carnivore, as well as carnivore-specific genes, and thus derives little energy and little protein from consumption of bamboo."

"While primarily herbivorous, the giant panda still retains decidedly ursine teeth, and will eat meat, fish, and eggs when available."

http://greatbear.org/bear-species/
Although they are too slow to catch most animals, they have been known to eat meat when the opportunity arises.

Red Panda: habitat, facts & information, endangered, lifestyle, diet, breeding, baby, sounds, behavior
"Information from their droppings reveal additional diet facts, such as their taste for other prey such as rodents and small birds. "

So NO....It's not strictly a herbivore.

Neanderthal are now classified as homo sapiens in much literature. There is no problem with humans breeding with other humans which is all Neanderthal ever was.

Great, now we can move on and not expect to keep seeing your silly arguments about how Neanderthal is viewed even thogh there is some fairly obvious differences in the skeletal structure of Neanderthals compared to H. Sapiens.

Erectus was not human, it is an ape, despite your attempts to humanise it. Neither was homo habilis, nor florensiensis

What testable evidence do you have to substantiate your assertion?

What does the fossil evidence say... that cats were created as cats, dogs as dogs, bears as bears. This is what you have found.

No it doesn't and we have not.......

 

[Autodidact]

Waitasec and Auto etc..... :foot: your response is what any creationist would expect.

Rather than trying to evaluate what my ability is to answer ever quandry in the world, why don't you try something novel like showing us all just what evidence there is for the ancestry of any carnivore. Ones that do not have likely or maybe etc would be a pleasant surprise.:yes:

It appears some of the fossil evidence has been classified as Miacis. There are many miacis species from what I have read. The only miacis picture or representation I see is a variety of cat, miacis. This is not convincing evidence of the dog ancestry as the next level of fossil evidence clearly represents the dog kind. Then you have fossils showing the first obviously bear kind.

What fossil evidence do you have to support the carnivore ancestry. Let's do this one, then we can look at another, maybe whales.

So if I was a nice little evolutionist and I said some idiot creationist asked for evidence of dog fossils that was not a dog but obviously something that did not resemble any of todays species of dog, cat or bear, what would you say? What fossil evidence do you actually have? Perhaps a tooth here, a jaw there...what?:sleep:

Is it more the fact that this ancestry simply must be this way for your models to work? That there must have been in existence at a certain time an arrray of various creatures, that you have lumped together, and called miacis that were the various ancestors of todays surviving carnavores? This is the presumption your researchers have made based on what? What makes you think that a bear-like creature was anything other than a bear? A cat like creature anything other than a cat? Then again you call a cat a martin like creature. Really anything that has 4 legs, fur and a head, COULD MAYBE PROBABLY OR LIKELY be anything!

MILLIONS OF YEARS FOR ONE SPECIES Theory is Wrong
Genome increase as a clock for the origin and evolution of life
Fossils may look like human bones: Biological anthropologists question claims for human ancestry
Homoplasy: A good thread to pull to understand the evolutionary ball of yarn

Your researchers really have no clue. It is all biased best guessing and long wish lists when it comes to ancestry and relatedness.


Asides, waitasec, and stupid comments all the more convinces me that what you and your cohorts, call convincing evidence, is a wish list at best.:yes:

Show me some of this convincing evidence of yours relating to carnivores!

I'm sorry, I don't understand exactly what you're asking for evidence of. The only thing I'm getting is that you think science and scientists are stupid and wrong.

 

[*Anne*]

I can imagine how frustrating this discussion is getting, but I just wanted to jump in here and say that, for me, this and the Speciation thread are the two most interesting threads on this site.

 

[camanintx]

Here's another picture of the same species of animal from the front. Does it look like a dog or a cat? So what? You are talking about creatures with us today a long shot from classifying something millions of years old? This is a mute point you are wasting your time on.

:biglaugh:

I find it utterly hilarious that someone who argues that biologists don't know what they are talking about cannot answer such a simple question.

 

[waitasec]

did newhope mean a 'mute point' or a 'moot point'?

 

[*Anne*]

[youtube]fLwYpSCrlHU[/youtube]
YouTube - Joey's Moo Point!

 

[newhope101]

PLoS ONE: Reconstructing Mammalian Phylogenies: A Detailed Comparison of the Cytochrome b and Cytochrome Oxidase Subunit I Mitochondrial Genes

And you haven't a clue. You've offered no way to distinguish the diversity of species on the planet. "Kinds", as you display in your argument, relies heavily on subjective morphology (e.g. Well it looks like a cat so it must be a cat). You have no idea where this fits.

Is it a cat or a dog in your view...? You keep evading the question.

Dear you like to woffle on and play lets find something newhope doesn't know and that will void any point I make. It's a loosing line anyway. However it is too bad that in looking for parsinomy evolutionsists have the knck of the complicating the most simple. .and what happened too "who says they are anything but cats"? You appear to have changed your ploy now.
Your morphology as a basis for taxonomy is refuted as it does not always align with DNA analysis and there is homplasy. Your DNA is crap also because the presumption of ancestry is already predetermined. As I said your researchers could prove humans and turtles share a common ancestor if they needed to.


So you can't even answer the question as to what it looks like considering you keep going on about how Miacis "looks like" a cat therefore it's a cat....Well, have at it. What does the picture look like? No the representation in Wiki Miacis and other is that of a cat. So a cat was one of the miacis species, created a cat, and does not share a common ancestor with a dog.
Miacis had species that were cat because that is the most parsinomous explanation. The skull you tried to shove down my throat is a cat. I also illustrated the diversity in any species skulls. Cat skulls from the varieties of cat are numerous as are bears and dogs.

Your researchers have clumped a whole lot of species together and tried to make out they are respresentative of some transitional phase. Rubbish. The problem is your researchers are desperate


Oh, and I find your statement to not make any kind of sense considering you just said......



So basically you answer my questions with a straw-man argument...which really means you're ill-equipped to answer the question. You talk a good game about how scientist and/or researchers don't know but instead of railing against those that have stated their case how about you put up some testable evidence that refutes them? Where are the creationist biologist and their testable evidence that "kinds" should be considered as a replacement for the widely accepted understanding of "Species"..?

http://culturesocietypraxis.org/index.php/csp/article/viewFile/131/99

I am not the fool DP

The evidence shows that the Neanderthal contributed DNA to H. Sapeins. What ways do you know this could happen?...So basically you "proved" my point. You haven't a clue as to what you're talking about. Woffle woffle...go tell your researchers that disagree and that you know it all...



You don't know that you don't know. Ye old great WIKI says.......

Giant panda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
" Pandas in the wild will occasionally eat other grasses, wild tubers, or even meat in the form of birds, rodents or carrion. In captivity they may receive honey, eggs, fish, yams, shrub leaves, oranges, or bananas along with specially prepared feed"

Despite its taxonomic classification as a carnivore, the panda has a diet that is primarily herbivorous; it consists almost exclusively of bamboo. However, pandas still have the digestive system of a carnivore and do not have the ability to digest cellulose efficiently, and thus derive little energy and little protein from consumption of bamboo. The average giant panda eats as much as 20 to 30 pounds of bamboo shoots a day. Because pandas consume a diet low in nutrition, it is important that they keep their digestive tract full. Bamboo leaves contain the highest protein levels; stems have less.
In the common, non-taxonomic sense of the term, carnivore is any animal with a diet consisting wholly or mainly of animal matter, whether it comes from animals living (predation) or dead (scavenging). The term is in contrast to herbivore, which refers to animals with a diet wholly or mainly of plant matter, and omnivore, which refers to animals that consume both animal and plant matter. In a similar sense, plants that capture and digest insects are called carnivorous plants, while fungi that capture microscopic animals are often called carnivorous fungi.
Carnivore - New World Encyclopedia

Sorry to make a fool of you DP, but I cannot hold back any longer.
Pandas are mainly herbervores.

YOU FAIL BIO101!!!

The wiki also says....
" the giant panda still has the digestive system of a carnivore, as well as carnivore-specific genes, and thus derives little energy and little protein from consumption of bamboo."
Hey you should have left this one alone. You are illustrating your desperation. You were providing some challenge there for a while. Now it appears you have stooped to ignorance as a refute. Looks like ....I WIN.
"While primarily herbivorous, the giant panda still retains decidedly ursine teeth, and will eat meat, fish, and eggs when available."
Still going on trying to justify your existence.... You can provide 50 links and Pandas will still be classed as herbivores in the carnivore taxa because their main diet is bamboo...silly.
Bear Species @ Great Bear Foundation
Although they are too slow to catch most animals, they have been known to eat meat when the opportunity arises.
On and on and on and on and on......
Red Panda: habitat, facts & information, endangered, lifestyle, diet, breeding, baby, sounds, behavior
"Information from their droppings reveal additional diet facts, such as their taste for other prey such as rodents and small birds. "
and on and on and on and on..but talking about poop is new low for you.
So NO....It's not strictly a herbivore.

I love to hear you lot go against your own researchers on the basics. Lovey, a herbervore is a herbovore because of what it mainly eats. You have dedicated most of this post to nonsense. If you do not like the classification you had best go speak with Dawkins or someone. Maybe he can do something about it just for you.

Great, now we can move on and not expect to keep seeing your silly arguments about how Neanderthal is viewed even thogh there is some fairly obvious differences in the skeletal structure of Neanderthals compared to H. Sapiens.

Another stupid aside. I have no problem accepting Neanderthal as human. It was your stupid desperate researchers that tried to make him out to be an ape man for so long in the first place.

Continued in next post........

 

[newhope101]

Quote Dirty Penguin.....What testable evidence do you have to substantiate your assertion?

This ain't human by a long shot and one does not need a degree in science to see it.

and......
Homo habilis
Soon you'll have chimps in with homo too, as some of your brainiacs are contemplating. The Genus Homo is the only Genus where the species within it have such huge differences. This illustrates to me that your human line is in the biggest mess of all your taxonomy.

No it doesn't and we have not.......
Yes you do!
[/quote]
　
　
Alas you have now resorted to desperation. You gave it your best shot though, so well done.

The panda thing showed you up to be a bit of a goose rather than a chimp.

Below is an example of your woffly science
The introgression of domestic dog genes into dingo populations threatens the genetic integrity of 'pure' dingoes. However, dingo conservation efforts are hampered by difficulties in distinguishing between dingoes and hybrids in the field. This study evaluates consistency in the status of hybridisation (i.e. dingo, hybrid or dog) assigned by genetic analyses, skull morphology and visual assessments. Of the 56 south-east Queensland animals sampled, 39 (69.6%) were assigned the same status by all three methods, 10 (17.9%) by genetic and skull methods, four (7.1%) by genetic and visual methods; and two (3.6%) by skull and visual methods. Pair-wise comparisons identified a significant relationship between genetic and skull methods, but not between either of these and visual methods. Results from surveying 13 experienced wild dog managers showed that hybrids were more easily identified by visual characters than were dingoes. A more reliable visual assessment can be developed through determining the relationship between (1) genetics and phenotype by sampling wild dog populations and (2) the expression of visual characteristics from different proportions and breeds of domestic dog genes by breeding trials. Culling obvious hybrids based on visual characteristics, such as sable and patchy coat colours, should slow the process of hybridisation.
An evaluation of genetic analyses, skull morphology and visual appearance for assessing dingo purity: implications for dingo conservation - DEEDI eResearch Archive (eRA)

As for Paintedwolfs black and white responses so as you said DP miacis was made of a huge variety of species. I say one of them was obviously a cat. PW has put up yet another totally different fossil to you skull examples and they do not look like bears or cats. It appears the miacis are representations of kinds, the cat kind, the bear kind, the thing that PW put up doesn't even look like a mammal. PW likes to play games of 'guess it if you can' as some demonstration of her maturity and credentials....NOT.

PLoS ONE: Reconstructing Mammalian Phylogenies: A Detailed Comparison of the Cytochrome b and Cytochrome Oxidase Subunit I Mitochondrial Genes

Unfortunately you cannot derive DNA from most of your fossils so your researchers are flying blind, your models are based on probabilities and assumptions as insertion values and are nothing more than derived and preassumed wish lists. Your evidence for miacis as any basis at all for a taxon of intermediates is non existent, to at best, scant... The fossils you have do not appear to represent any mid species, rather they are testimony to many of the kinds today being represented in miacis, as well as some that are extinct..

Lets move onto Indohyus whom I say is nothing more than a deer. This should provide creationists with a laugh.

 

[painted wolf]

This ain't human by a long shot and one does not need a degree in science to see it.

Like you can see that a bear is clearly a cat?

And this is clearly not human...

Yup. nothing remotely human there.

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Is it a cat or a dog in your view...? You keep evading the question.

Dear you like to woffle on and play lets find something newhope doesn't know and that will void any point I make. It's a loosing line anyway.

Not a problem. If you don't know then just say you don't know. At least that would be the one honest thing you would have said. I'm not saying it voids (all) your points but when it comes to morphology you're incorrect. In this case, where the animal has the appearance of a dog and a cat, you're stuck scratching your head trying to figure out what "kind" of animal it is. I already know what it is and what other animals, genetically, it relates to.

what happened too "who says they are anything but cats"? You appear to have changed your ploy now.

It's still there. See picture above. You have no idea what it is or where it's suppose to fit. I know what it looks like but more importantly...I know what it is an what it's not.

Your morphology as a basis for taxonomy is refuted as it does not always align with DNA analysis

Who, but you, thinks I rely or morphology? If memory serves correctly...I said to you that you shouldn't rely on morphology. I accept both morphology as well as DNA. Morphology is only part of the picture. Indeed a lot has changed because certain scientific techniques were not available to scientist years ago. Now it is much easier to discern what is related to what...(i.e. chimpanzee, Neanderthal and H. Sapien).

Your DNA is crap also because the presumption of ancestry is already predetermined.

The hypothesis is that X is related to Y. The experiments confirm the hypothesis...which is why virtually all biologist agree that primates and humans are related. No amount of waffling on your part can refute that fact.

Dr. Michael Behe (an Intelligent Design Advocate) said in his books...(in part)
"I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism – natural selection working on variation – might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small." Darwin's Black Box, pp 5-6.

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71-2.

No the representation in Wiki Miacis and other is that of a cat. So a cat was one of the miacis species, created a cat, and does not share a common ancestor with a dog.

But I've given you no reason to assume that I disagree that Miacis wasn't "cat like"....What I'm saying is there is no reason to rely solely on the color drawing thus making that definitive determination if you haven't examined any fossils and you haven't researched to see if any DNA suggest common ancestry.

Now, what evidence can you present that shows Miacis could not have given rise to cats and/or dogs respectively?

Miacis had species that were cat because that is the most parsinomous explanation.

It might be the simplest to you but it's not that simple if you understood that more goes into it than looking at a pretty picture. Case in point is that pretty animal at the top of this page. Well Duh, it looks like a cat......Well Duh, from the front it looks like a dog.........but if you truly knew what it was, morphologically and genetically, you'd understand it's nowhere related to either. Your camp of creationist scientist would certainly list it as "cat kind"....

The skull you tried to shove down my throat is a cat. I also illustrated the diversity in any species skulls. Cat skulls from the varieties of cat are numerous as are bears and dogs.

There's so much diversity and variety and yet you keep on illustrating you haven't a clue how to determine the two. The skull I listed, if you're referring to (http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/12/18_mammal_extinction.shtml) is nowhere close to a cat. It is most definitely from the skeletal system of a Short Faced Bear.

Your researchers have clumped a whole lot of species together and tried to make out they are respresentative of some transitional phase. Rubbish. The problem is your researchers are desperate

Everything is placed quite nicely....much better and more understandable than just clumping everything that ('looks like a cat')....into a group of "kinds"...even if the animal wasn't a cat at all huhhhn?

Sorry to make a fool of you DP, but I cannot hold back any longer.
Pandas are mainly herbervores.

YOU FAIL BIO101!!!

Once again, the fail is on your part. You obviously didn't pay attention. You stated Pandas were herbivores, not "mainly", and I said they weren't strictly herbivores as they are known to eat meat and this is why they were rightfully classed the way they were. You denied this....the wiki...TOTALLY agrees with me. You just don't understand what the word (primarily) means. I "primarily" eat chicken and turkey but I have been known to eat seafood and beef. Primarily, in these instances, does not mean ("ONLY").

Hey you should have left this one alone. You are illustrating your desperation. You were providing some challenge there for a while. Now it appears you have stooped to ignorance as a refute. Looks like ....I WIN.

Maybe you missed something. I wasn't trying to "win" anything rather trying to illustrate.....

Still going on trying to justify your existence.... You can provide 50 links and Pandas will still be classed as herbivores in the carnivore taxa because their main diet is bamboo...silly.

Oh so you do agree that their behavior isn't strictly herbivore? Why didn't you say so? We could have avoided all this. You gave the impression that they were strict herbivores. My refute was spot on, illustrating that they're not.

and on and on and on and on..but talking about poop is new low for you.

It was to illustrate that we know more about their dietary habits than what you think. I wasn't trying to be crass...merely stating the facts.

I love to hear you lot go against your own researchers on the basics. Lovey, a herbervore is a herbovore because of what it mainly eats. You have dedicated most of this post to nonsense. If you do not like the classification you had best go speak with Dawkins or someone. Maybe he can do something about it just for you.

Yes and know. "Mainly" is the operative word. Remember, I said it wasn't ("strictly") a herbivore considering we do know what they eat. It has the teeth, digestions system and genes of a carnivore yet it's "primary" source of food is bamboo...even though it can and will eat meat so it has been placed in the correct order by biologist.

Another stupid aside. I have no problem accepting Neanderthal as human. It was your stupid desperate researchers that tried to make him out to be an ape man for so long in the first place.

Yes...pre DNA all there was to go on was archeology, anthropology and morphology. Even before DNA, as we learned more and more about them we realized they were closely related to us more than what was previously thought. Now the DNA confirms we're related. This is how science works.

How does H. Neanderthalus fit into the creation model?

Were they Adam and Eve?

Where does H. Sapein fit into the creation model considering we know H. Neanderthalus and H. Sapien are two hominids with separate distinguishable characteristics and morphology that existed around the same time...not to mention H. Sapien and Neanderthal are separated by genomic 202 base pairs?

If Neanderthal is human, as you admit, wouldn't this make Neanderthal a different species?

This can't simply be chalked up to "kind variation" considering you deny H. Sapien and Chimpanzee relationship even though the genome supports ancestry there as well.

If Neanderthal, considering the genetic differences and similarities, make it a separate species of "human" then this refutes your definition of "kind".....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Quote Dirty Penguin.....What testable evidence do you have to substantiate your assertion?

This ain't human by a long shot and one does not need a degree in science to see it.

So I ask for evidence and this is obviously the best you can do. If we're just going off looks then yes, this looks more human than not. You have not presented any testable evidence that H. Erectus is not an ancestor.

No it doesn't and we have not.......
Yes you do!

No it doesn't. The fossil record is exactly that. It makes no claim that any particular species was "created"....

Try again...

 

[newhope101]

So I ask for evidence and this is obviously the best you can do. If we're just going off looks then yes, this looks more human than not. You have not presented any testable evidence that H. Erectus is not an ancestor.
Is that so. ...and you also have not testable evidence apart from morphology. So what strategy will you scurry to this time? We have discussed homoplasy, we have discussed not placing too much value on morphology. It is only desperation that forces evolutionists to classify anything the find to support their theory. There are many flat faced apes and monkeys. Lluc is just one of them. I have run this refute many time. You should have heard it by now. Flat faces are not an indication of the rise to humanity at all, just like the homonid crap you lot went on about until Ardi changed that. Once again researchers have invented the excuse of evolutionary convergence in relation to face morphology. There is ample evidence to tie many facial feartures to diet and enviroment. You need all this myth and all your various speciations types to sticky tape your theory together and resuscitate your TOE.

Anoiapithecus displays a very modern facial morphology, with a muzzle prognathism (i.e., protrusion of the jaw) so reduced that, within the family Hominidae, scientists can only find comparable values within the genus Homo, whereas the remaining great apes are notoriously more prognathic (i.e., having jaws that project forward markedly). The extraordinary resemblance does not indicate that Anoiapithecus has any relationship with Homo, the researchers note. However, the similarity might be a case of evolutionary convergence, where two species evolving separately share common features

New Hominid 12 Million Years Old Found In Spain, With 'Modern' Facial Features


No it doesn't. The fossil record is exactly that. It makes no claim that any particular species was "created"....

Try again...You should pay more attention, then I won't have to constantly educate you

So we have been talking about miacid. The best you can come up with is a request for clarification of an aside.

You have no evidence at all in relation to carnivore ancestry. Fancifull wishlists are all you have.

Look now to your whale evolution. Another huge laugh for creationists.

Photo: Whales Evolved From Tiny Deerlike Mammals, Study Says

So indohys was a deer like creature. Here's an idea ....it may be a deer! That is much too simple and parsinomous for your researchers. That notion would not support your precious TOE, so they have turned it into a crap myth. What a joke. The biggest joke is on you evolutionists that swallow this nonsense like a baby takes to the spoon.

What makes you thing that humans did not evolve from whales? Our brain circuitry is much the same......

Whale Brain, Surprisingly Similar to Human Brain - Softpedia

Oh yeah..Parallel evolution is the created myth to explain away this one. Our precious spindle neurons that lesser apes do not have, but higher ones do, is used as a support for evolution and is another nonsense. Whales have similar spindle neurons to humans. If Darwin had of said humans evolved from a sea mammal, this research would make headlines as conclusive evidence that humans and higher apes evolved from a common ancestor with whales and the lesser apes evolved along a different line that did not evolve these spindles. What rubbish. I truly believe your researcher could illustrate close ancestry between humans and turtels if they needed to.

So basicaly what I am saying is that you do not have any evidence, fossil or otherwise, and only fantasy that supports the evolution of whales from a land animal either, just like you have no real evidence for the evolution of carnivores....just a wish list that includes a deer like creature that can't simply be a deer.

Rearranging the whale family tree : Laelaps
Indian Whales
Whale Brains

PS. My saying I do not know was in response to an unnamed fossil that PW put up. She likes to play show and guess as a sign of her maturity and desperation. If she actually named the fossil, I would refute it easily.

and I'm glad to see you've learned a little about pandas DP

 

[camanintx]

Buddah lived about 600 B.C.E. Moses wrote 900 years before that and we still read and study his writings today.
The oldest known Hindu writings date back to the 4th century B.C.E

That you think these two statements are in any way comparable simply illustrates your lack of understanding.

 

[painted wolf]

What unnamed fossil was that exactly?

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

So we have been talking about miacid. The best you can come up with is a request for clarification of an aside.

In other words, a clear demonstration that you're wrong.

You have no evidence at all in relation to carnivore ancestry. Fancifull wishlists are all you have.

What specifically is it about carnivore ancestry that you're looking for evidence of?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Is that so. ...and you also have not testable evidence apart from morphology. So what strategy will you scurry to this time? We have discussed homoplasy, we have discussed not placing too much value on morphology. It is only desperation that forces evolutionists to classify anything the find to support their theory.

So I take that as a (NO). You have no testable evidence that suggest "Homo Erectus" is not related to humans. Please stay on track as THAT is the hominid we're discussing.

You should pay more attention, then I won't have to constantly educate you

What..?....You said ("What does the fossil evidence say... that cats were created as cats, dogs as dogs, bears as bears. This is what you have found.").... and that is a lie.....

So we have been talking about miacid. The best you can come up with is a request for clarification of an aside. You have no evidence at all in relation to carnivore ancestry. Fancifull wishlists are all you have.

What request for clarification? All you've done is gaze upon some rudimentary color photo and made the assumption that it's a cat, only a cat and nothing else. Is that all it takes for you is to see a cat like creature in a tree to jump to the conclusion that it is only a cat? OK...here have at it. Is this a cat??????

Here. No elementary school drawing and coloring. This is a real life animal perched in a tree in a similar fashion as the Miacis. It's from the "Order" (Carnivora)..so what..it must be a "cat" too, right?

and I'm glad to see you've learned a little about pandas DP

Don't flatter yourself. The panda remains in the order (Carnivora) as it should. Anatomically and genetically it meets the criteria to be placed in that "Order".. The only thing I continue to learn from you is you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about.